Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 Md. 458 - Boring v. Jungers

Boring v. Jungers’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Master v. Master (1960), Kaylor v. Wilson (1971)

1 district · 35 state decisions

170196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James · The Glendale Corp. v. Crawford · Brewer v. Herbert · Brodsky v. Hull · Dermot A. Nee and Antoinette K. Nee v. Joseph v. Dillon and Lois B. Dillon

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We think the Borings cannot justly complain because the road frontage, including that of the Peltzer wedge, was some 190 feet short of 1200 feet. Passing the point that the contract said the frontage was ‘approx. 1200 feet’ — compare Cohen v. Numsen, 104 Md. 676, 681 , and Brodsky v. Hull, 196 Md. 509 — we find it clear that the Borings knew before settlement that there were only a little over 1000 feet of road frontage. Furman was their agent; the evidence makes it plain that he knew the facts, and his knowledge acquired in the course of the transaction was the knowledge of his principals. ” (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted) 222 Md. at 463 , 160 A. 2d at 783 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘that cancelling an executed contract is an exertion of the most extraordinary power of a Court of Equity. The power ought not to be exercised except in a clear case, and never for alleged fraud, unless the fraud be made clearly to appear, never for alleged false representations, unless their falsity is certainly proved, and unless the complainant has been deceived and injured by them.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A sale, though founded on the misrepresentations of the seller, cannot be for that cause wholly rescinded, if prior to the completion of the sale, the purchaser had become acquainted with the whole facts, and yet confirmed the bargain.” 44 Md. at 248-49 , quoting Hilliard on Vendors, § 330.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.